Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20814668›Full record

ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2011

Analysis and characterization of heparin impurities.

Szabolcs Beni, John F K Limtiaco, Cynthia K Larive

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Utilizing theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Techniques for Detection of Clinical Used Heparins.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2021
    Review
  9. Quality Control of Heparin Injections: Comparison of Four Established Methods.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Glycosaminoglycans from Co-Products of «Biological procedures online · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Szabolcs BeniDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
John F K Limtiaco
Cynthia K Larive

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review discusses recent developments in analytical methods available for the sensitive separation, detection and structural characterization of heparin contaminants. The adulteration of raw heparin with oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) in 2007-2008 spawned a global crisis resulting in extensive revisions to the pharmacopeia monographs on heparin and prompting the FDA to recommend the development of additional physicochemical methods for the analysis of heparin purity. The analytical chemistry community quickly responded to this challenge, developing a wide variety of innovative approaches, several of which are reported in this special issue. This review provides an overview of methods of heparin isolation and digestion, discusses known heparin contaminants, including OSCS, and summarizes recent publications on heparin impurity analysis using sensors, near-IR, Raman, and NMR spectroscopy, as well as electrophoretic and chromatographic separations.

Indexed as

Drug ContaminationAnimalsAnticoagulantsChondroitin SulfatesChromatography, High Pressure LiquidElectrophoresisHeparinHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopySpectroscopy, Near-InfraredSpectrum Analysis, RamanAnticoagulantsChondroitin SulfatesHeparin

Identifiers

PMID20814668
PMCPMC3015169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.